Chennai Court December 1924 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
L.N. Lakshmana Aiyar and Ors. Vs. V.V.C. Ramalinga Mudaliar and Sons' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad888; (1925)48MLJ522
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs have brought the suit to recover the advance of money paid in respect of a contract for yarn. The contract is evidenced by Ex. A and was entered into on the 19th August, 1918. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase 50 bales of Madura Meenakshi Brand Yarn No. 40 at Rs. 14-7-0 per bundle. On the 23rd of September, the defendants sent intimation to the plaintiffs that two bales according to the contract had arrived and on the 1st of October they gave intimation of arrival of another bale. Plaintiffs sent no answer to this intimation and consequently on nth October, 1918, defendants wrote a reminder in which they said that their vendors Lakshmana Iyer and Sons had intimated that the terms of the contract would be enforced and added ' we too give intimation to you accordingly.' In this letter they asked the plaintiffs to pay for and take delivery of the bales at once. A similar request was again made on 16th October, 1918, and finally a third letter was wri...
Guntuku Appanna (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Jallepalli Gavarappadu by Moth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad910; 87Ind.Cas.748; (1925)48MLJ601
ORDER1. Order in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 100 of 1924 : This is an application to amend the cause title of the decree in Appeal No. 355 of 1917. This appeal was unfortunately heard and determined a few days after the death of the 2nd appellant therein; the fact of this death was not known to the Court or to the vakils arguing the case. The appeal succeeded and a decree was passed in favour of both the appellants. Subsequently when an application was made to pass a final decree in the Original Court, an application was also put in to implead the 2nd appellant's legal representatives. It is suggested for the respondent that that application was out of time, even if the 2nd appellant had been alive on the date of the decree, and on that ground they should not have been brought on record. This is not a question which we have to decide here as that application is not before us; but it appears that this is a case where the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives should ...
(Vaithi) Matharan and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad210
ORDERShrinivasa Aiyanger, J.1. The order of the Sessions Judge directing a re trial of the accused in this case for the offence with regard to which they were discharged by the Magistrate is wrong. There was really no evidence on the record with regard to the ownership of the tank. It appears from the evidence of the karnam that it was poramboke and it was a poramboke tank. So long as the villagers agree, it is well known that the temple 'authorities or the headman of the village lease out the yield from such common resources and utilise the same for common purposes. The mere fact therefore that the fishery in this tank was leased out in previous years by the temple trustees would not, in view of the nature of the common practice, go to establish the ownership in the tank. Unless the ownership in the tank is established, there is no question of possession of the fish and there is a fortiori no question of any theft of any fish. After all, I am not at all satisfied that the accused in t...
Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Zamindar of Udayarpalayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad150
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This is a matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 18, corresponding to the familiar section of the English Bankruptcy Act whereby cases of this kind are transferred as a matter of course every day and every one who had ever had an experience of these matters will be quite familiar with it.2. The appeal must he allowed and then learned Judge must exercise the jurisdiction which he has held that he did not possess. Costs on the Original Side scale.Madhavan Nair, J.3. I agree....
In Re: Thiruppal Kadalnatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad706; 87Ind.Cas.924
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The order of the appellate Magistrate is clearly wrong. After having found that Section 159(1) had no application, he went on to convict the accused under Section 163(1). No charge was framed under this latter section. The accused was not tried for that offence, or convicted by the lower Court for any such offence I cannot possibly see what right the appellate Magistrate had, to confirm the conviction, on the ground that the offence under a different section, not charged against the accused, was made out. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that an offence even under the section, he referred to, had really been committed by the accused, because there is no reliable evidence that what was done by the accused caused any obstruction on the road. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused is clearly wrong. The Public Prosecutor has also fairly intimated to me that he cannot possibly support the conviction. In these circumstances, the conviction...
Ramaswami Alias Duraiyya Sembimutharasu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1213
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. It is always desirable that when there are cases and cross-cases the appeals arising from such cases should ha posted before and tried by the same Bench. However, this appeal having come up before me, I am bound to deal with it on the evidence on the record, and on that evidence I have no hesitation in holding that the appellants have not been proved to be guilty of the offences for the commission of which they have been convicted and sentenced. The offences charged were rioting, rioting with deadly weapons and causing hurt and grievous hurt. The dispute was between the Kallars and Pallars of Shoroi Kudipatti. The Kallars who were larger in number and considerably more influential than the Pallars had been making arrangement for the purpose of catching fish in the Oorani with the help of certain Muhammadans from Trichinopoly. The Pallars were objecting to it. The evidence that is accepted by the learned Sessions Judge really is the evidence of the disinterested...
i.L. Lakshmana and ors. Vs. V.V.C. Ramalinga Mudaliar and Sons Firm Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.206
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs have brought the suit to recover the advance of money paid in respect of a contract for yarn. The contract is evidenced by Ex. A and was entered into on the 19th August 1918. The plaintiffs agreed to purchase 50 bales of Madura Meenakshi Brand Yarn No. 40 at Rs. 14-7-0 per bundle. On the 23rd of September, the defendants sent intimation to the plaintiffs that two bales according to the contract had arrived and on the 1st of October they gave intimation of arrival of another bale. Plaintiffs sent no answer to this intimation and consequently on 11th October 1918, defendants wrote reminder in which they said that their (sic) Lakshmana Iyer and Sons had intimated that the terms of the contract would be enforced and added 'we too give intimation to you accordingly' In this letter they asked the plaintiffs to pay for and take delivery of the bales at once. A similar request was again made on 16th October 1918 and finally a third letter was written ...
Vaithi Matharan and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.855
ORDERSrinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The order of the Sessions Judge directing a re-trial of the accused in this case for the offence with regard to which they were discharged by the Magistrate is wrong. There was really no evidence on the record with regard to the ownership of the tank. It appears from the evidence of the karnam that it was poromboke and it was a poromboke tank. So long as the villagers agree, it is well-known that the temple authorities or the headman of the village lease out the yield from such common resources and utilise the same for common purposes. The mere fact, therefore, that the fishery in this tank was leased out in previous years by the temple trustee would not in view of the nature of the common practice go to establish the ownership in the tank. Unless the ownership in the tank is established, there is no question of possession of the fish and there is a fortiori no question of any theft of any fish. After all, I am not at all satisfied that the accused in this ...
Krishnaswami thevan and ors. Vs. Pulukaruppa thevan Minor by His Mothe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad717; 88Ind.Cas.424
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit brought by a minor represented by his mother as next friend for partition of family property. He impugned several alienations made by his father, the 1st defendant, as not binding on his interest and the Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition. The 7th defendant and the defendants Nos. 4, 5, and 6 who are the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant appeal. The 7th defendant is an alienee of the first item and the others are alienees of items Nos. 4, 7 and 28. Their Vakil, without directly attacking the findings of the Subordinate Judge that the alienations of these items are not supported by consideration and are not binding on the plaintiff, has argued that as the 1st defendant admitted having received consideration, these alienations are binding at least on his share, and that they may, in the course of partition, be allotted to his share, and that if this is done the possession of these appellants will not be disturbed. The items i...
Bachu Chinna Nagappa Vs. Bachu Naranappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad731; 87Ind.Cas.667; (1925)48MLJ461
Ramesam, J.1. The 2nd defendant sued the 1st defendant for recovery of her husband's share of the family properties alleging that her husband and 1st defendant were divided. The Original Suit No. 708 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Penukonda was compromised by which she admitted there was no division, accepted three acres and odd absolutely for herself, and gave up the rest of the property moveable and immoveable. The Courts below found that the compromise was binding on the parties to it and no fraud on the 2nd defendant (the then plaintiff) has been proved but that the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant colluded and entered into the compromise, by which she obtained a benefit personal for herself and it is not binding on the plaintiff who is the reversioner. In all such cases the questions (1) whether the compromise of the widow is bona fide, and (2) whether the compromise amounts to an alienation depend on the true facts as found in the later suit on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »